Standing Committee F

[Mr. Barry Jones in the Chair]

Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill

Clause 1 - Application of Part V of the Care Standards Act 2000

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out `ordinarily'.—[Mr. Walter.] 
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Barry Jones: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendments: No. 2, in page 1, line 10, leave out `in Wales'.
 No. 3, in page 1, line 13, leave out `in Wales'. 
 No. 4, in page 1, line 19, leave out `in Wales'. 
 No. 5, in page 1, line 21, leave out `in Wales'. 
 No. 7, in page 2, line 2, leave out `ordinarily'. 
 No. 6, in page 2, line 4, leave out `in Wales'. 
 No. 17, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 36 and 37. 
 No. 18, in clause 3, page 3, leave out lines 14 to 18. 
 No. 19, in clause 4, page 3, line 28, leave out from `provided' to `by' in line 29. 
 No. 20, in clause 4, page 3, line 32, leave out `in Wales'. 
 No. 21, in clause 4, page 3, line 43, leave out `in Wales'. 
 No. 22, in clause 4, page 4, line 2, leave out `in Wales'. 
 No. 23, in clause 4, page 4, line 10, leave out `in Wales'. 
 No. 24, in clause 4, page 4, line 21, leave out `in Wales'. 
 No. 25, in clause 4, page 4, line 23, leave out `in Wales'. 
 No. 26, in clause 4, page 4, line 26, leave out from `services' to `those' in line 27. 
 No. 27, in clause 4, page 4, line 29, leave out from `provided' to `by' in line 30. 
 No. 28, in clause 4, page 4, line 33, leave out `in Wales'. 
 No. 29, in clause 4, page 4, line 43, leave out `in Wales'. 
 No. 32, in clause 4, page 5, line 3, leave out `in Wales'. 
 No. 33, in clause 4, page 5, leave out lines 5 and 6. 
 No. 35, in clause 4, page 5, leave out lines 26 to 29.

Robert Walter: We had a thorough debate this morning on the amendments to clause 1. I am conscious of the fact that Divisions in the House have interrupted our proceedings, so I shall not delay the Committee.We have made it clear that we are concerned about the situation in England, although it does not fall within the scope of the Bill. More particularly—we shall deal with the subject again in later amendments—we are worried about non-devolved and cross-border matters. I shall withdraw the amendment in the interests of progress, but I hope that the Minister will consider whether a better way can be found. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Principal aim of the Commissioner

Nigel Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 12, after `rights', insert `, interests'.

Barry Jones: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 9, in page 2, line 12, at end add
`with particular regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child'.
 No. 44, in clause 3, page 2, line 22, at end insert— 
 `(1B) In exercising his functions under subsection (1) the Commissioner shall have regard to the need to:— 
 (a) maintain direct contact with children and children's organisations; 
 (b) pay particular regard to the views of children; 
 (c) promote respect for the views of children; 
 (d) promote compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, as ratified by Her Majesty's Government and subject to such reservations as Her Majesty's Government made on ratification, unless subsequently withdrawn.'.

Nigel Evans: It is my pleasure to move amendments Nos. 8 and 9; I also have enormous sympathy with amendment No. 44, but other hon. Members will speak to that.
 Amendment No. 8 is fairly straightforward; it would simply insert the word ``interests'' between ``rights'' and ``welfare''. It broadens the debate. We all have our own ideas of what is meant by ``rights'', but that can create its own difficulties. However, ``welfare'' is well understood. Following the Waterhouse report into child abuse, not one member of the Committee would want a child's welfare to be adversely affected. 
 A cross-relationship between rights and welfare can be seen in a number of issues that affect children. For instance—it has been mentioned before—Wales does not have a children's hospital. What about the right of children to have their medical problems dealt with in a hospital closer to home? At the weekend, I visited Haverford West and Milford Haven. When a child from either of those towns has a medical problem that needs to be dealt with in a Bristol hospital—I am not sure which hospital children from south Wales would have to attend—the parents' journey could take many hours. The Children's Commissioner may wish to comment on that in respect of the children's welfare and their rights. 
 Children living in Wales who have to spend some time in hospital surely have the right to be visited regularly by both parents, but that can be difficult if, as is so often the case, they both work. I make no judgment on that; it is one of the realities of living in the United Kingdom in the 21st century—and probably anywhere in the western world. If both parents work, they might find it difficult to visit regularly, especially if the child is likely to be in hospital for a long time, and if the child is being treated at Great Ormond Street hospital in London, the parents will be travelling for several hours. That can place an enormous strain on family life, particularly upon the children who, at certain ages, will feel a sense of obligation on behalf of their parents, who feel that they must visit their children regularly, despite the fact that the cost and the incredible inconvenience make it difficult.

Andrew Rowe: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that more than 30 years ago the Black committee discovered that, beyond peradventure, children in hospital who are visited regularly by their parents get better much more quickly. Is not that one of the great dilemmas of modern hospital management? The demand by the medical profession for ever more specialist hospitals often means that people must travel further than is probably good for their care.

Nigel Evans: I certainly accept that. I represent a rural constituency and hon. Members with hospitals outside their patch will know that even for adult relatives visiting adult hospital patients the travel can be expensive and involve a lot of time and bother. When a child is involved, that trouble is multiplied tenfold. Compelling medical evidence exists, as my hon. Friend mentioned, for making parental visits easier, on health and welfare grounds.

Julie Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is making his argument with respect to the right of the child to treatment? Clearly, what he describes happens in Wales now, and the need to leave Wales for hospital treatment because of the lack of provision there is currently under discussion. What are the hon. Gentleman's reasons for raising the issue.

Nigel Evans: I raise it in connection with amendment No. 8, which would add the interests of children to their rights and welfare in clause 2. I just want to make sure that every avenue is covered.
 The siting of hospitals is always a hot issue; it will always be inconvenient to someone. Through the use of the phrase ``rights, interests and welfare'', we seek to ensure that the relevant concern will be covered by the clause. If a children's hospital were built in Haverford West, we could say that there was a children's hospital in Wales. However, for a child living in Ynys Mon it might be more convenient to go to Manchester or Liverpool.

Elfyn Llwyd: I accept most of what the hon. Gentleman says. An additional aspect is the Welsh language. Often young children do not speak English until the age of four or five. My sister had a rare problem with her left ear, which meant having to go to Alder Hey hospital in Liverpool. She did not do at all well until they found a Welsh-speaking nurse, because she could not converse with the medical people there.

Nigel Evans: I fully appreciate that language difficulties arise with children, irrespective of their first language. For a child going anywhere in England, and even for a child going to a hospital in Wales, there could be a problem in finding staff in the appropriate speciality who could converse with the child in Welsh. We need a more understanding approach.
 We discussed the children of asylum seekers earlier this morning. Parts of Wales are more cosmopolitan than others. One has only to look through the telephone book to see surnames from all over the United Kingdom. Irrespective of whether children in hospital are Welsh, English or from another part of the world, thought should be given to how best to look after them. In the case of a child whose first language is Urdu, for example, ways need to be found to promote his or her rights, interests and welfare. It is not only location that matters, but everything to do with the child, when special medical treatment is being sought. That is why we want to put in the word ``interests''. We can broaden that to youth custody, though there maybe problems with that, as there might be with penal custody. 
 Some young people in prisons are many miles from their homes. I have received letters from the families of such young people, who write that they cannot afford to visit them, which is a real problem. They cannot afford the train fare, which can be expensive, and they cannot afford the bus. It might be that four or five members of a family might want to visit in order to keep the family together. I understand those concerns. An enormous distance between the prison or place of youth custody and the family home might have a disproportionate cost upon the family. 
 I shall mention Milford Haven again. The fact that it has about 25 per cent. unemployment was a rude awakening for me. It is an area of growing deprivation. Members of the family may be unemployed or have a limited income for all sorts of reasons. They will look for ways to keep the family together. That is the right of the child. It is in the interest of the family and the child's welfare that we facilitate that, which is why we have proposed the amendment. We are probing the Government as to whether the interests of the child will be covered. If we include ``rights'' and ``welfare'', would it not be even more comprehensive to include the word ``interests'' as well? 
 There is a great deal of agreement over amendment No. 9. Also, I will not speak to amendment No. 44—I will allow those who tabled it to do so. We shall see how the Minister responds before we decide what to do next. 
 The Health and Social Services Committee of the National Assembly for Wales has carried out an investigation. Some would see me as not being the greatest supporter of devolved government on the planet; I will leave them to make their own judgment on that. However, I have to say that the document produced by that Committee is good. It has taken comprehensive evidence from leading charities and bodies that are involved in the issue. In the opening paragraphs of the document, which has been useful to me in my deliberations, it states, 
 This Committee fully endorses the key principles of the rights of children as defined in the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. 
It continues, 
 The UN convention informed the overarching context in which we approached this task; which is our commitment to the rights of all children and young people to be treated as valued members of the community whose potential must be fully developed through appropriate policies and services and the meaningful representation of their interests. 
A number of bodies have supported the inclusion in the Bill of the United Nations' convention on the rights of the child. Gareth Wardell, a respected former Member of the House, was mentioned on Second Reading and I have no hesitation in mentioning him again. His organisation produced an excellent briefing on behalf of a number of children's charities, including Save the Children, Barnardos and the Children's Society in Wales. The briefing goes into depth about the United Nations' convention on the rights of the child. There is not a children's charity that does not want the convention included in the Bill. 
 It was a Conservative Government who signed the convention in the first place. While there might be reservations about certain aspects of it, as a whole, the convention is good and comprehensive. It is the most widely accepted human rights treaty in existence, and has created a global momentum for children. The convention calls for children to be taken seriously, which is something that we all accept—it is why we are on this Committee—and says that children should be listened to; that is part of amendment No. 9, which I will not address. The convention is widely respected.

Ruth Kelly: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman propose those views, and I was interested in his remarks about asylum seekers. Is it now the Conservative party's policy for the United Kingdom not to exempt the children of asylum seekers, with regard to the UN convention?

Nigel Evans: It is Conservative party policy to ensure that genuine asylum seekers are afforded the opportunity to come to this country and to be properly protected. I do not think that there is any party difference on that. It would also be within the rights of families, including the children, to have their cases heard as quickly as possible.
 In the Ribble valley, there was a former Victorian mental institution. It has now been knocked down, but it was kept up so that several hundred genuine asylum-seeking families, including many children, could be housed while it was worked out where to put them. Their rights to remain in the United Kingdom were varied. The vast majority of them have now left, having sought asylum from the war in Kosovo. I do not think that anyone had a problem with their doing so. Some may have remained in the UK. We need some clarity and certainty, which would be better for the asylum seekers—especially genuine asylum seekers, so that their cases could be dealt with more clearly—and any youngsters in this country. 
 Many people are perturbed when they get on the tube and see someone clutching two babies, walking through the train and begging for money. What are the children's rights in that case? They must have rights relating to their use in that way. Surely we ought to afford protection for those asylum seekers while their cases are heard, and ought not to resort to letting the children be used as tools for begging. That is wholly wrong, and we must sort it out. 
 The international perspective is important, as I mentioned on Second Reading. As we go through the legislation, many countries will consider what we do. That is why I want to ensure that the Bill is comprehensively amended so that it will last for some time. We know how scarce time is for primary legislation in this place, so let us not say that the Bill is yet another stepping stone. If there are problems with children's deprivation, rights and welfare, let us sort them out in the Bill. There is enough good will and general compliance on the Committee for us to be able to sort through the issues now, so let us do so. 
 According to the UN agency, 600 million children live on less than 70p a day. That is an enormous number, and it is up 50 million from 1990. There are problems in this country. A report was published stating that Britain was 20th out of 23 countries in a league table of relative poverty. UNICEF has said that one British child in five lives in poverty, a worse figure than in all but one of the 14 European Union countries, and worse even than Turkey and nations of the former communist bloc such as Poland and Hungary. That is problematic. UNICEF has stated that child poverty has tripled in Britain during the past 20 years. 
 The Bill will help to protect children living in Wales, but I hope that it can be extended to the whole United Kingdom, or at least England. As I said, other countries are looking to us, and we are keen to encourage them to sign up to the United Nations convention. Perhaps, when they examine their legislation, they can incorporate the convention into it. I hope that the Minister will say that he is prepared to do so. 
 There are five key elements to the convention on the rights of the child. The Government seem to be concerned that if we refer to the convention in the Bill, they will have to follow every letter, dot and comma, but that is not the case. The commissioner would pay due regard to the convention while ensuring that children were being properly and fully protected. The Government are good on aspirations. Many elements of the convention are aspirational, and it may take some time to achieve them fully. I suspect that meeting the standards will be rather like painting the Forth bridge, because they are rising every year. That is the way it should be. It would be pointless employing Victorian levels or indicators today. We must ensure that we keep improving the standards. 
 The first of the five key elements deals with children's rights to basic health and welfare. That has been covered enough. I think that everybody agrees that children's health and welfare needs should be met. One interesting aspect of the debate is the current controversy over MMR—the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. In the future, the commissioner may have his or her opinions as to whether the triple vaccinations should take place, or whether single vaccinations are better than none. 
 Such issues come and go. I spoke about the 600 million children. We should consider how many children are dying throughout the world of AIDS. How many children in Africa are dying of that disease? Those children have a right to the health care that they need. I do not think that any member of the Committee would deny that they—and their parents—should receive better health care and education. 
 The second element is the right of the child to live with his or her parents, and to maintain contact if separated. Clearly, no one has any problems with that. The third element is the child's right to education, leisure and cultural activities. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) spoke about the culture of a child who speaks only Welsh, who must be able to get the health care that he needs. Such a situation is also relevant to education, leisure and cultural activities. 
 A further element is the child's right to special protection. We tend to think, when we examine the issues involved, that that particular right does not really concern British or Welsh children. The convention states that children have a right to special protection in emergency situations, such as armed conflict, or when they are separated from family or home. That might have some relevance in Northern Ireland, but, thankfully, the armed struggle is less of a problem than it was. It certainly has some relevance to the UK. 
 The convention also states that the child has the right to special protection when he or she is in conflict with the law. That is related to the non-devolved areas mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). There might be certain legal issues on which the commissioner might wish to comment. He would not do so while cases are being heard, when they are sub judice, but he might comment after they have been heard. He or she might wish to comment on the conduct of a case or about sentencing. I have no problem with that. We heard from the Minister that they will still be able to do it informally, and I suspect that many newspapers will not be susceptible to the difference between formal and informal. It is yet another matter mentioned in the convention, along with drug abuse, sexual exploitation and the sale, trafficking and abduction of children. The sale of children was mentioned this morning when hon. Members referred to the internet. I suspect that when the convention was devised in 1989 no one had the internet in mind; it was at an embryonic stage then, but it has since given a general thrust to the sale and trafficking of children. 
 The final principle is that children should be free from ``discrimination of any kind''. When I read that, I wondered what sort of discrimination children would suffer in Wales. I was sent copies of various newspaper reports detailing the comments of Seimon Glyn, a Gwynedd councillor. Those comments are inflammatory, and if I were the child of parents moving from England to Wales, particularly to the Gwynedd area, I would be greatly offended by them. Irrespective of what else Seimon Glyn says, his comments border on racism. The Daily Post reported that the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) had said that those remarks were ``disturbing comments'' that revealed ``the dark underbelly'' of Welsh nationalism. I wholly agree with him. 
 Seimon Glyn said that the number of English residents in north Wales should be monitored and controlled. He described English as a foreign language and said that people moving into the Gwynedd area were a drain on the community. That is most offensive. 
Mr. Llwyd rose—

Nigel Evans: I shall finish the point, because the hon. Gentleman may wish to comments on it. Seimon Glyn wrote:
 Of course, I recognise that the subject is a delicate and sensitive one but I believe that it is my duty to stand up and say that it is wrong that my way of life is allowed to be destroyed. 
What about the way of life for children of families moving into Wales? His comments may lead to other children in schools taunting the children of incomers. I am sure that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, who represents the same party as Seimon Glyn, will want to distance himself from those comments, and to say how inflammatory they were and that they could cause offence to the children of people moving into Wales, to those living in Wales, and even to a number of Welsh people.

Elfyn Llwyd: I utterly condemn those remarks. They are no part of my thinking, nor that of my party. I unreservedly apologise for those words; I could never have uttered them. We must not forget that last year the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) called incomers to parts of north Wales ``scroungers''. That, too, was offensive; but not so much was made of it at the time.

Barry Jones: Order. I know that when the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) resumes his speech, will bear the amendment in mind.

Nigel Evans: Yes; it is all to do with the United Nations convention, which talks about ``discrimination of any kind''. We do not wish to see discrimination in Wales; and I could not think, when I first read the convention, where in Wales it might be found. However, when those comments came to light it was obvious. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments; he is a fair man in all his dealings, and I welcome the fact that he rejects those comments.

Julie Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as well as in those areas that have already been raised, discrimination exists in Wales, particularly in health care? For example, children from ethnic minorities who live in Wales have a worse standard of health care. That is now acknowledged by the Government and by local authorities trying to deal with the most serious problems of underlying discrimination—for example, health care for black children.

Nigel Evans: If the Bill incorporated a requirement on the commissioner to pay due regard to the convention, the Government would not have to worry about the commissioner hauling them before the bar of public opinion to accuse them of falling down on such matters. The measure would be aspirational and open to interpretation.
 I used the word ``discrimination'' in the sense of dealing with inflammatory language that affects children in the playground and in families at home. The hon. Lady widened its scope to include health, education and children's welfare in general. I accept what she said, and I think that we can safely say that it will be interpreted sufficiently broadly to take account of those matters. 
 Another part of the convention deals with the civil rights and freedoms of children. At the beginning of its deliberations, the National Assembly for Wales said that the convention should be incorporated into the Bill, and we should pay due regard to that. 
 I shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say. We all want to see the Bill make good progress, and reference to the convention will help to improve it.

Win Griffiths: I am pleased to be able to speak to amendment No. 44, which deals with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley and considers more deeply and widely the functions and role of the commissioner.
 Clause 2 gives what might be termed a catch-all description of the commissioner's role. It says that it is: 
to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children to whom this Part applies. 
It could be argued that a broad interpretation of the clause would cover at least three of the issues raised in amendment No. 44—which, I am pleased to say, is supported by Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru Members. 
 My purpose in tabling the amendment was to stress the importance of the work of the commissioner as an agent of social change and a person who will help to change the way in which people think about children. During our debates on the Waterhouse report—when the BBC was screening its production of ``David Copperfield''—I was struck by the stark brutality with which adults treated children at the end of the Victorian period and the early part of the 20th century. 
 As we leave the 20th century and move into the 21st century, we are beginning significantly to readjust our views about children in society. Nevertheless, we have a long way to go. The continuation of such problems is evidenced by our difficulty in getting to grips with what children tell us about the abuse that is meted out to them by adults, who are often close family members. As adults, we find that difficult to grasp because those are not the type of things that we expect adults to do. The role of the commissioner is to develop that agenda by paying special regard to children's views, promoting respect for their opinions and maintaining direct contact with children and children's organisations. That is the flesh on the bones of clause 2. It is important that we establish how the Government see the role of the commissioner developing. I have every confidence that Peter Clarke will want to do those things, but is it better to include them on face of the Bill, or is the catch-all presentation in clause 2 sufficient? To include them on the face of the Bill would help to promote the child-centred approach that we anticipate the commissioner bringing to the job. 
 The hon. Member for Ribble Valley gave us a detailed exposition on proposed new subsection (1B)(d) in relation to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, so I shall not go into more detail on that. However, when the Assembly advertised the post of commissioner, the job description emphasised the issue of promoting and upholding the convention. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the previous Government ratified the convention in 1992, although they had reservations, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) sought to explore with him. Those reservations related to refugee children so they would not generally apply in the United Kingdom. To make the amendment absolutely clear, we refer specifically to those reservations in the context of the previous Government's ratification of the convention. 
 Although the United Nations convention on the rights of the child has been ratified, it has never been made law. That is an interesting point, which I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will develop in his response. During the five post-ratification years of the previous Government, that ratification was not taken into account by UK law. During the four years of office of this Government, we have not yet made progress on such legislation, but I have no doubt that a great deal of thought is given to the matter in Government circles. One big advantage that we now have in the presentation of the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill is that it gives a high profile to the ratification of the convention, which has not passed properly into UK law. That must happen for the commissioner to act upon it in the manner proposed in the amendment. 
 The hon. Member for Ribble Valley mentioned that child poverty had worsened considerably in the past 20 years. If we were not trying to maintain a consensus, I might point out who was in government for most of the past 20 years, and that this Government are committed to doing something about child poverty. Nevertheless, I welcome the Opposition's support for the measures that are being undertaken. 
 In conclusion—

Andrew Rowe: I rise only because the hon. Gentleman says that he is about to conclude. I want to ask him whether, under paragraph (a)—
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Andrew Rowe: As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, I want to ask the hon. Gentleman about an important issue concerning paragraph (a) of amendment No. 44. Does ``children's organisations'' mean organisations of children or organisations for children? Some organisations are getting a good deal better at listening to what young people want, and I know how difficult that is to do. The UK Youth Parliament is always inventing something new, regardless of what was said in a previous sitting, and its members ensure that they get what they—rather than what older people—want. However, there are organisations that consist of little more than the prejudices of those who run them, bolstered by the number of young people that they claim to represent. I should be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments on that.

Win Griffiths: I appreciate the interest that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has shown in children's issues over many years, and I know that his question arises from a genuine commitment. The phrase ``children's organisations'' is sufficiently broad to enable organisations of children and organisations for children to be taken into account.

Julie Morgan: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an extremely important point? In discussing such matters in this place, the views of children have been put to us directly, particularly through organisations such as Children in Wales, which directly consults and involves children.

Win Griffiths: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Assembly showed the way by including young people in the appointment process for the commissioner. Several all-party groups in the House have the interests of children at heart, and take great care to consult children, and organisations in which the voice of young people is paramount. I am keen that that message should get across.
 On the amendment, I have already pointed out that the Assembly dealt with matters relating to the UN convention in the commissioner's job description. I wonder whether the Assembly has the power formally to ensure that all such matters form part of the job description, which might render the amendment otiose. Perhaps the Assembly could, in a yet more formal way, lay its own orders relating to the job description, provided that they were framed in the context of the Government of Wales Act 1998. 
 The purpose of the amendment is to test whether the Government are inclined to include such a provision in the Bill, or whether, in the light of my concluding remarks, we can ensure that such matters are dealt with in other ways. Changing the atmosphere and culture in which children are regarded is vital. It is one of the commissioner's most important jobs.

Richard Livsey: I congratulate the representatives of children's organisations, who have briefed us so well. In spite of being the father of three children I cannot claim to be an expert, and it is good to have the briefings. I may quote from some of them and I acknowledge the wisdom in them.
 It is said these days that a crucial debate is under way between rights and responsibilities. The groups that advise us on the Bill rightly champion the rights of children, but Committee members, of whatever party, are also discharging responsibilities to children. It is incumbent on us to do a really good job and to ensure that the Bill does not let children down. It is important in this day and age to acknowledge our personal responsibility to do that. 
 I am concerned mainly with amendment No. 44, which, besides emphasising the need to maintain contact with children and to have regard to and respect for their views, invokes the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Although that convention is not fully on the statute book, as some of us would want, we, like other areas of Europe, still have a responsibility to take it on board. Rebecca Wallace wrote in the journal International Law in 1986: 
 Human rights are more successfully regulated at a regional level rather than at an international level. 
In other words, the UN convention on the rights of the child is better discharged at a small nation level than as part of some grand international design. Therefore, it is quite appropriate that the duties of the Children's Commissioner for Wales will be carried out on an all-Wales basis. 
 We must try to incorporate the United Nations convention on the rights of the child into the Bill. It is revealing that other European countries and countries with children's ombudsmen and ombudswomen nearly all accept the convention. I hope that the Minister will explain the reasons for non-compliance, in the case of the Children's Commissioner for Wales—if that is what is happening. 
 The hon. Member for Ribble Valley outlined elements of the convention, and some of those are fundamental. The right to an identity and to a name are fundamental to a child; the right to life, survival, development and a nationality also. In addition to those fundamental human rights, a child has a right not to be separated from their parents, to know and be cared for by their parents, and to leave and enter states for the purpose of family reunification. How often have we heard of children in one country while their parents are in another? In the case of the United Kingdom, we could mention children that are in a hospital far away from Wales, whose parents cannot afford to travel. Another fundamental right is that of freedom of expression. Children—quite rightly—were involved in the selection of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. 
 The United Nations' convention covers many important issues. It outlines fundamental rights that the citizens of Wales and of the United Kingdom almost take for granted. We should not take them for granted because times, and leaders, change; not so much in the United Kingdom, but in other countries, where leaders—fascist and communist—have jackbooted over people's rights. I stress the importance of the UN convention and hope that we shall receive a reasoned and intelligent response from the Minister.

Julie Morgan: I am pleased to support the amendment. It contains key points that will define how the commissioner operates, in particular how he communicates with children and children's organisations, and takes on board their views. It is important to state that it is not easy to communicate with children or obtain their views; or to establish systems through which young people can express their views to the commissioner and his office. The commissioner's ability to obtain their views in order to express them and bear them in mind in his everyday work will determine his success. That consideration is an important part of the amendment.
 I am interested to know whether the Minister thinks that the obligation can be imposed on the commissioner. The Bill implies an obligation—it is unwritten—but the need to consult and how that is done are important. It has been mentioned that children took part in the selection of the commissioner. That was a first for a public appointment and a first for Wales. We should ensure that the high standards applied in the appointment of the commissioner are also applied in the way in which he operates. It is expensive to consult children, as I know from my work in the voluntary sector before becoming a Member of Parliament. That is why it is important to make explicit such an obligation. 
 When the Danish ombudsman came to Cardiff some years ago, he spoke about his consultation with children. He held wide-ranging discussions, conferences and seminars with them. He communicated with them through the internet. Great efforts were made to ensure a flow of information between children and young people and the commissioner's office in Denmark. We should aspire to the same in Wales. It is therefore important that the obligation is a requirement of the Bill. 
 Whenever the clause and the amendments mention consulting organisations and children, we should remember that that means all children—including those in some of the groups of which we have spoken today. It includes some of the most underprivileged and deprived groups in Wales; we have not yet mentioned asylum seekers' children, travellers' children and gypsy children. It includes also those children for whom we shall have to make specific effort to ensure that their views are communicated to the commissioner. 
 We may be talking today about discrimination, but we all know of the inverse care law—the poorer people are, the harder it is for them to get services. It is important to remember that when trying to ensure that the commissioner has a strong voice in tackling child poverty. We may know that the poorest get the worst services, but we hope that the commissioner will be working to change that. 
 The convention on human rights has been covered in detail. Its principles are important and should form a core element of the commissioner's work. I will be interested to hear from the Government whether they can accept amendment No. 44, or think that it would be better for the National Assembly to include such a provision in the regulations, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). The amendment is at the core of the matter because it touches on some key issues—including how the commissioner should function if he is truly to be a champion for Wales, as the Government say they wish him to be.

Elfyn Llwyd: The hon. Lady spoke about adopting the provisions of the UN convention, but we must remember that Governments are loath to adopt conventions. The Human Rights Act 1998 was enacted only because time was running out and the Government had to do so. I am making not a political but a general point that successive Governments have not been keen on international conventions—even though the human rights convention is at the core of the amendment, as the hon. Lady said.
 One reason for the Government's reticence in adopting the articles of the UN charter on the rights of children is that according children rights makes those rights legally enforceable. The hon. Member for Bridgend spoke earlier about the Dickensian period, when children were supposed to be seen and not heard. I am pleased to say that, although those days are largely long gone, they are still sometimes with us. I encountered such an attitude when I served on the Committee that considered the Family Law Act 1996. 
 The point that was at issue in 1996 is germane to today's debate. I have been involved in divorce law for some years—I am glad to say not personally—and have often seen couples agreeing a division of property, and even who should have the dog, but no one seemed to consult the children and young people or consider their best interests. I know that, for a child aged under 10, the decision might depend on who last gave him a toy, but children over 12 ought to be heard if they express that wish. 
 In my work on the 1996 Act, I was assisted greatly by children, as we are again for this Bill. I wanted to amend the Family Law Bill to include a right for children to be heard, for them to have regular contact with their estranged parents and, if required, for them to be represented in proceedings so that they could be heard. Each time I proposed the amendment, it met the same response: the Government were not keen to accord legally enforceable rights to children. Of course, they did not say so in so many words. There is a different culture out in the big wide world, but ours is not to accord legally enforceable rights to children. 
 I am pleased to say that things have moved ahead well in the past few years. Shortly before the Family Law Bill, which became the Family Law Act 1996, finished its passage through the Commons, I was called into the Lord Chancellor's Department and told that my amendments would be accepted. Now it is illegal to make a final divorce settlement until a child or young person has been heard, by himself or herself or through a lawyer, if he or she wants to be heard. That is a great advance. 
 The hon. Member for Bridgend was right in that there has not been an en-bloc assimilation of the articles of the UN charter, but that provision incorporated three of its articles into domestic law. I do not think that it was that ground-breaking. What was said in the context of the 1996 Act was common sense anyway. However, it was up against the culture of not recognising immediately the good sense of according legal rights to children. 
 The National Assembly for Wales is keen for there to be some reference to the convention in the Bill. The report of its Health and Social Services Committee, entitled, ``A Children's Commissioner for Wales'', contains two main points fully endorsing the convention in its summary. It also states that 
 The UN Convention informed the overarching context in which we approached this task; which is our commitment to the rights of all children and young people to be treated as valued members of the community whose potential must be fully developed through appropriate policies and services and the meaningful representation of their interests. 
The amendment is designed to place in the Bill the duty to promote compliance. 
 The words ``promote compliance'' are not the strongest in the world, but they mean that the commissioner and his office must do as much as they can to promote compliance with the UN convention. I do not think that that is at all ground-breaking. We are indebted to all the children's groups who have informed the debate—the Children's Society, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the umbrella body, Children in Wales—not only for their current work but for the huge amount of lobbying that they have done at the Assembly. I know how much lobbying went on in a short time, and they are to be congratulated on their stand on behalf of the children of Wales. I hope that their work will in due course be of great assistance to their colleagues in the context of an English commissioner. 
 I hope that the Minister will say that he will carefully consider whether the simple words ``to promote compliance with the UN convention on the rights of the child'' can be incorporated in the Bill. If he opposes that, I hope that he will tell me why. Is there a legal problem, or any problem at all? I am sure that there is not, and that accepting the amendment would be a real sign from the Committee and the Government. I pay due regard and gratitude to the Government for including, for example, the word ``rights''. I have not seen that word used in the context of children in a Bill before. It is a positive sign, but the most positive one would be to incorporate the words ``to promote compliance''. If there are no insurmountable drafting or legal problems, I urge the Government and the Minister to think again.

David Hanson: We have had a useful debate and all the contributions were welcome.
 We have heard a good deal about the need for the Commissioner to have regard, as amendment No. 9 would require, to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. I shall give the Government's view on that in a moment. Amendment No. 44 would have a similar effect, in addition to directing the Assembly as to the job description and the exercise of the Commissioner's functions, with respect to attending to and promoting respect for children's views. It has been suggested by hon. Members that the principle aim of the Commissioner should, as amendment No. 8 would provide, be extended to include safeguarding and promoting the interests, as well as the rights and welfare, of children covered by the Bill. 
 Having listened to hon. Members' arguments, I do not think that there is a difference in principle between what the Government and the National Assembly for Wales are promoting, and the aims of the amendments. The only difference is in attitudes to the detailed implementation. 
 Amendment No. 44, which was tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Bridgend and for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) and the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, deals with the need for the Commissioner to take account of children's and young people's views and to encourage others to do so. I have discussed it with Jane Hutt and officials at the National Assembly for Wales. They see paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the new subsection that the amendment would introduce into the Bill as defining key roles of the Commissioner. They have already begun to implement the principle by means of the ground-breaking proposal mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North of involving children in the appointment of the Children's Commissioner. As has been said, that is a novel approach. 
 The key difference between us on paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) concerns devolution. Amendment No. 44 is clearly intended to direct the National Assembly for Wales and the Commissioner on maintaining direct contact with children, having regard to their views and promoting respect for those views, and would thus undermine some of the principles of devolution. The Government have been keen to ensure that much of the detailed regulation is a matter for the Assembly. 
 I understand that the Assembly intends to consult fully on the proposals for the way in which the Commissioner will work and the points covered in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) will be included in those discussions. Later this year, possibly in spring, there will be an opportunity for consultation with a wide range of children's bodies, and with colleagues in the House and in the Assembly, to examine how the commissioner will interface with children and young people. Hopefully, that consultation will provide—this relates to the first part of amendment No. 44—an opportunity for Members of Parliament, Assembly Members, children's charities and all interested parties to give their views on how the commissioner should liase with young people. That would be more appropriate than making provisions for such liaison explicit in the Bill. To do so would be unduly prescriptive towards the National Assembly. 
 That brings me to the main part of amendment No. 44, which touches upon many of the issues raised by the hon. Members for Ribble Valley, for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and for Brecon and Radnorshire and my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, North and for Bridgend. They have all spoken about the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. 
 Hon. Members will be aware that, although the UN convention was ratified by the United Kingdom when the hon. Member for Ribble Valley's party was in office, it has not as yet been incorporated into domestic law. That point determines the difference between the Government's position and that of hon. Members who have spoken today. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy about the contents of several of the articles being adopted per se, as part of the development of family law issues. 
 The Government agree with the ratification of the convention by the previous Government, but it has not yet been incorporated into domestic law. It therefore has a particular status. I have consulted Government colleagues and we have also discussed the matter with the Assembly. The Government do not regard it as appropriate to make specific reference to the convention in the Bill. However, that does not mean— and I hope that I can be supportive of hon. Members' remarks—that the Government do not support the principles set out in the convention. They are clearly of direct relevance to many of the commissioner's functions, and they should inform the way in which he carries out those functions. 
 The international framework of the UN convention is positive and optimistic for children. As hon. Members will know, the convention contains 41 articles that set out specific rights in great detail. The articles embody a strong, broad vision, which underpins the work of the Assembly and of the Government. However, it is an inescapable fact that the convention has not been incorporated into domestic law as a general principle.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am listening carefully to what the Minister is saying. I ask him to return to the question posed by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North. If the National Assembly decided that it wanted to ensure, through the job description for the commissioner, or by other means, that the commissioner promoted compliance with the UN convention, would there be any problem with that? If not, what is the difference between the Assembly making such a decision and the Committee putting a similar requirement in the Bill?

David Hanson: Those are important points, but I shall come to them in a moment.
 I would like to confirm that the broad vision of the UN convention is important. Many specific rights have been mentioned, such as the right to protection from different forms of violence, the right to receive guidance on dangerous drugs and sexual abuse, and the right to be protected from abduction, or being sold. The Government and the Assembly would not commit themselves to those rights. That is why the ratification has our support.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman made a slip of the tongue. He said that the Government would not support the rights that he listed. I think that he meant that the Government would support them.

David Hanson: If I made a slip of the tongue, I am sorry. We would certainly support those rights. Clearly, the Government do not believe that there should be a right to sell children. Members of the Committee may check that in Hansard. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is good to have the Opposition Whip on one's side, wide awake and keeping an eye on matters.
 The Assembly gave a strong commitment to the convention in its draft strategy for children and young people, ``A Framework for Partnership'', which is out for consultation. The positive references contained in that document, together with those in the advertisement and job description for the post of commissioner, give me confidence that the Assembly's support for the convention will underpin the work of the commissioner. That has been evident from the work that it has undertaken so far. 
 In carrying out his functions, the commissioner will draw on other sources of guidance and relevant rights-based legislation—for example, the Human Rights Act 1998. The Assembly will have regard to the convention when it frames the commissioner's workload and gives him directions. The principles of the convention underpin the work of the Assembly and the Government, and they both believe in the importance of its role with regard to the Bill. However, difficulties remain in terms of incorporating it into domestic law. I hope that that explanation gives comfort to members of the Committee. 
 Amendment No. 8, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, would add the word ``interests'' to the definition of the commissioner's principal aim in clause 2. I am entirely sympathetic to the thinking behind that. However, having taken advice from officials in my Department and in the Assembly, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his concerns are fully met by the current formulation of the Bill. I am confident that the addition of the word ``interests'' would not add to the broad thrust of the commissioner's work in dealing with such matters. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said, the Bill uses the words ``rights'' and ``welfare'', both of which are strong words that should be sufficient to deal with the hon. Gentleman's concerns. We shall return to the other matters that he mentioned, such as cross-border issues and the provision of services, in due course. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend impressed me greatly with his comment that the Bill is about changing the way in which people think about children. The tone of the Assembly's approach, of the Government's approach and, I hope, of my approach, should make it clear that the Government believe in the ratification of the convention. It underpins the work of the Assembly, it is in the job description, it is in the draft strategy that is open to consultation in the Assembly and it is not something to which the Government are opposed. However, given the domestic law issue, I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on our discussion of the amendments, and I hope that they will be withdrawn today.

Win Griffiths: I am heartened by the positive approach that my hon. Friend the Minister has taken to the debate. I was especially struck by his commitment to the Assembly's approach to the issue through the job description, the role of the commissioner and the current consultation concerning the promotion of compliance with the United Nations convention. I am happy that issues relating to the convention will be part of the commissioner's role. However, I understand that there would be serious legal problems if we were to put compliance with the convention in the Bill. Due to the requirements of consultation, there is no prospect of getting a Bill through the House before the next election—even if it were to be in May or June 2002. Therefore, legislation incorporating the convention into UK law is something that we must consider on the other side of the election. Given my hon. Friend's remarks about amendment No. 44, I shall not press it.

Nigel Evans: I listened carefully to the Minister's response to amendment No. 8. Do we deal with amendment No. 9 later, or shall we deal with them together?

Barry Jones: I shall deal with them together, when I know what the hon. Gentleman proposes to do.

Nigel Evans: Thank you, Mr. Jones, for making it easier on me. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee generally agree on these amendments. As I said earlier, amendment No. 8 was designed to broaden the role of the commissioner, so that issues not covered by ``rights'' and ``welfare'' would be mopped up by ``interests''. The Minister said that ``rights'' and ``welfare'' would mop up all issues, so I shall accept his view and not look to press amendment No. 8 to a vote.
 We carefully worded amendment No. 9, which deals specifically with the United Nations convention, to add: 
with particular regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. 
The use of ``with particular regard'' meant that it did not have to be incorporated in UK law. The Minister said that the Assembly mentioned the convention in its job description, despite it not being part of UK law. I assume that applicants would have had to pay due regard to the convention as something they believed in. Similarly, all that we are saying is that the commissioner would have to believe in it. Similarly, all we are saying is that the commissioner would have to believe in it. Although it is not part of UK law, it was ratified by the Conservative Government and has the Government's full support. I therefore see no reason why the amendment should not be accepted. 
 This issue is important not only for Wales but for the international community. We all accept that the Assembly will pay regard to the convention through the commissioner's job description and so on, but if it is not stipulated in the Bill—

Win Griffiths: I am not a lawyer, and I am fairly sure that the hon. Gentleman is not either. However, I should have thought that if the convention were to be included in the Bill it would immediately become a legal requirement and that, because it had not been incorporated into British law, this part of the Bill would thereby become defective. Did the hon. Gentleman receive any legal advice stating that it could be incorporated into the Bill without any legal implications for the standing of the convention?

Nigel Evans: I am grateful for that intervention. The simple answer is no, I received no legal advice. The hon. Gentleman is right—I am not a lawyer, I am proud to say. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset says, I am a humble shopkeeper.
 On common sense grounds alone, I do not understand why the Bill cannot include a requirement to pay regard to the convention. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern about making the Bill defective, but neither do I want to make it ineffective. If we can make it more effective by ensuring that it pays due regard to the convention, we should seriously consider doing so. 
 I shall not press the amendment to a vote. However, it gives us an opportunity to review the legality of the matter in the light of comments by the Minister, children's charities and the Assembly. If we can strengthen the Bill by including the convention without incorporating it—at the same time ensuring that we do not make the Bill defective—we should revisit that possibility. 
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Review of exercise of functions of Assembly and other persons

Richard Livsey: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 2, line 15, at beginning insert—
 `(A1) The Commissioner may make appropriate representations about any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children ordinarily resident in Wales.'.

Barry Jones: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 46, in page 2, line 15, at beginning insert—
 `(A1) The Commissioner may make appropriate representations to the National Assembly about any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children ordinarily resident in Wales.'.

Richard Livsey: Amendment No. 42 is more simple to debate than the previous amendment, which dealt with the grey area of incorporating the convention into British law.
 We now return to part of the territory that we covered during the debate on clause 1. It is important to recognise that the provision in amendment No. 42 would be all-encompassing. It states: 
 The Commissioner may make appropriate representations about any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children ordinarily resident in Wales. 
That is a one-off statement. It would mean that the remit of the commissioner could encompass all aspects of the rights and welfare of children who are ordinarily resident in Wales. 
 The amendment would allow the commissioner to be a truly independent watchdog and champion of children, and would strengthen the Bill in four key ways. First, it would allow the commissioner to report on potential and actual primary legislation that is outwith the Assembly. Secondly, it would give the commissioner the right to comment freely on non-devolved matters and functions that impact on children in Wales. Thirdly, it would enable the commissioner to represent the interests of children who are ordinarily resident in Wales, but who receive services or are accommodated outside Wales. Fourthly, it would allow the commissioner to consider, and make appropriate representations about, matters that proved to be key in the light of consultation and other forms of contact with children and young people in Wales. 
 As a constituency Member of Parliament for Brecon and Radnorshire, I know that children in Wales have considerable contact with areas outside Wales. Hon. Members may be aware that the boundary between Powys and England stretches some 132 miles—the equivalent of travelling from the Severn bridge to the Hammersmith flyover. The ways in which people move back and forth across that border are therefore legion. We have children in hospitals in Shrewsbury and Hereford. Others travel to Birmingham for treatment, while those from the south-east of Wales travel to Bristol. Sadly, there are also children who are sent to penal institutions across the border. 
 The points to which I have referred, including empowering the commissioner to comment freely on non-devolved matters and functions, are important. They touch on the Home Office in particular, and on local government in England, which we cannot ignore. Often, local government is responsible for children's homes and for fostering children. Several of my child constituents are in foster homes in Shropshire, for example. Members of the Committee may not be aware that my constituency has 12 neighbouring constituencies—more than any other in Britain—and people move around in all manner of directions. It is important that we represent the interests of children ordinarily resident in Wales but receive services or are accommodated outside Wales. That applies to hospitals, local government establishments and fostering services, and in various other situations. 
 Amendment No. 42 reflects the description of the general power of the National Assembly for Wales in section 33 of the Government of Wales Act 1998. If the Government were so inclined, they could adopt a wording such as, ``The Children's Commissioner may consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting children in Wales that is compliant with the Government of Wales Act 1998.'' Indeed, it is very important that we have such a catch-all clause. 
 In passing, I should mention amendment No. 46, which is relevant to amendment No. 42. Where amendment No. 46 states that the commissioner 
may make appropriate representations to the National Assembly about any matter affecting the rights or welfare of children ordinarily resident in Wales, 
amendment No. 42 is far more wide-ranging. It covers eventualities that I mentioned in relation to non-devolved matters, and services received, outside Wales. 
 The amendment echoes the wording of the Government of Wales Act 1998, in that it includes specific references to consideration, which would allow the commissioner to review issues of concern or potential concern. The Government have argued that the commissioner can comment informally on any matter, but how much weight is carried by an informal comment? How much power is there behind it? Informal comment is insufficient because the post is created by statute, so it must carry the force of statute. 
 The commissioner is required to act within his statutory authority. The Bill restricts the Commissioner's ability to do that, as outlined in the report of the Health and Social Services Committee of the National Assembly, although the job description for the post refers to that. Therefore, the commissioner will not be on a par with existing European children's commissioners and ombudspeople. That is especially true compared with Scandinavia, where I know that some members of the Committee have witnessed the legal weight carried by its commissioners. 
 The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and I—and perhaps other members of the Committee—support the amendment because the role of the commissioner must have teeth, not only with regard to the Assembly, which is obviously important, but to non-devolved areas. We must ensure that the commissioner is a champion for all Welsh children, wherever they may reside.

Elfyn Llwyd: I shall be brief because I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire said.
 On Second Reading, and earlier today, the Minister said that the commissioner would be entitled to investigate and make informal comment on reserved matters. That goes part of the way towards where we should like to see the commissioner operating, but I ask him to differentiate between the wording of the amendment and what he claims the commissioner can do. I cannot see a real difference between ``informal comment'' and ``may make appropriate representations''; they are one and the same. Before he gets up and says, ``Therefore the amendment is otiose,'' I shall say to him that I would prefer to see it in the Bill. 
 There is nothing objectionable in the amendment from a drafting, or any other, point of view. Indeed, it aligns with the views the Minister expressed on Second Reading and earlier today. By including reserved matters, it will hopefully assist the commissioner to be a full and wholehearted champion of children and young people in Wales, even if he makes only informal comments and/or appropriate representations. When that issue was debated earlier, we hoped that the commissioner's informal comments would be informed comments. 
 Will the Minister explain in detail why the amendment is unacceptable? I cannot see any difference between what he said earlier today, and on Second Reading, and the amendment.

Win Griffiths: I do not believe that there is anything but a technical difference between amendment No.46, in which I am joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North, and that moved and supported by the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. The difference is simply the place to which the commissioner will make his representations.
 The amendment would allow the commissioner to report on primary and potential primary legislation; to comment on non-devolved matters and functions when they impact on children in Wales; to represent the interests of children ordinarily resident in Wales, who are receiving services outside Wales paid for through the Welsh purse; and to consider and make representations on any matters that emerge as key concerns through consultation and other contact with children and young people in Wales. 
 The difference that I propose is that the commissioner's representations be made through the National Assembly, which would be consistent with the devolution settlement and the Government of Wales Act 1998. Furthermore, that would provide a proper focus for the Children's Commissioner. Instead of flicking from Department to Department with the appropriate representations, he would make his representations to the National Assembly, who—with the full force of the Government of Wales Act 1998 behind it—could make representations directly, and through the Secretary of State for Wales, to Departments. That is a more satisfactory way to deal with the situation because it gives a clear, formal structure within which the commissioner would operate and would make his representations more appropriate.

Andrew Rowe: The hon. Gentleman talks a lot of sense. As the Minister is being open and supports the concept, we should like to hear some examples of the things upon which representations would not be allowed.

Win Griffiths: Obviously, my hon. Friend the Minister could comment upon that.
 The amendment deals with some of the objections that may be felt in Government circles. I that hope my hon. Friend will take amendment No. 46 back to those circles to see whether it is acceptable, or whether another amendment with the same purpose would be. I hope that the Committee understands that I am trying to work within the devolution settlement in order to make the commissioner more effective in his work.

Robert Walter: I nearly intervened on the two previous hon. Members because all three hon. Members have made the point that they are trying to achieve some of the objectives to which I alluded this morning in terms of cross-border and non-devolved matters. In the words of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, this is a catch-all clause. My concern is that it catches more than non-devolved and cross-border matters.
 Does the Minister think it appropriate for the commissioner to make representations about what goes on in the home of a normal family? Or should he be restricted to public bodies and statutory agencies?

Win Griffiths: This is where we need to tread carefully. One interpretation of what the hon. Gentleman said is that there should be no investigations by the commissioner of child abuse in families if he felt that it was simply something that happened within families.
 The Bill and amendment are related to the concerns of children. The commissioner would have to judge whether the concerns of children would lead him to find a problem in a family that the social services inspectorate might not have dealt with properly. He would certainly not be allowed simply to say something about the relationship between a child and his family. We need to put that point aside and consider matters clearly in the context of the representations made to the commissioner.

Robert Walter: I do not want to suggest that the commissioner would not be concerned about child abuse in the home. Clearly, he should be, as it is rightly a matter of concern to social services departments throughout Wales.
 If we take the amendment at face value, the commissioner could take it upon himself to act like a health education authority and say what is good practice and that all parents should do X, Y and Z. We do not want him to do so. It is right that he should consider child abuse in the home, problems in non-devolved bodies and cross-border issues. However, I am concerned that he should not somehow become the arbiter of good practice in bringing up our children in normal family situations.

Win Griffiths: I do not think that the Bill or the amendment would allow that. The Bill must be seen specifically in the context of promoting the rights and welfare of children, and in the context of the commissioner consulting children about what interests or concerns them. I do not envisage the commissioner delivering tablets of stone from on high about any subject, unless it could be shown that the subject concerned children widely and was not a problem for only one child. On such matters, there should be debate.
 My amendment would work through representations to the Assembly, so that the commissioner could not take action separately. The Assembly would consider those representations, as should be the case in any democratic society. I hope that that has set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively about the way in which the commissioner may be able to make appropriate representations. The most appropriate way would be through the Assembly, to be consistent with the devolution settlement. 
 Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Touhig.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Seven o'clock till Thursday 25 January at half-past Nine o'clock.